Ideas versus harsh reality

I watched ‘The Help’ a week or so ago. I found it quite a powerful movie, although I appreciate why African-Americans criticize the way the black women are less at the centre of this story than they should be. It can at times be about a young, white woman’s search for salvation, rather than a struggle for justice.

I was struck, though, by how hard it is to be courageous when there is no community to help you have courage. It is hard to stand up against things like racism when all the people around you are racist, and will leave you socially isolated if you disagree. You need a community and another story to sustain any courage.

But I was also struck by what a strange and uneven contest the fight against racism can be. Racism isn’t simply a nice idea or a playing around with mental constructs about human nature. Racism is about the defence of the social and economic benefits enjoyed by a few, or a way for some people to keep themselves off the absolute bottom of the community.

Racism justifies slavery, poor pay and conditions, and leaving people with all the hard and menial tasks in a community. Racism justified high risk and poor worker protection, keeping costs down to maximize profits for a few.

The unevenness of the contest is that churches and other bodies try to explain why racism is wrong. It is a conversation about morality and values, a battle over ideas, when racism is about daily realities. It’s a contest of good ideas versus benefits, and benefits will nearly always win.

That is why people talk about trade boycotts when faced with racism and injustice. Boycotts say: actually we are going to make sure that there are less benefits to you continuing to act unjustly. We will not talk about the wrongness of racism, and then keep buying your goods that are produced in a racist economy.

That’s why the decision of the US Presbyterians to discuss disinvestment in companies that deal with Israel is important. All the talking and the moralizing, all the discussions about international law and justice, are wasted. There are benefits for Israel in denying Palestinian autonomy, destroying homes, stealing water, and taking land. While the US has clearly decided that it will prop up Israel and its racist regime forever, it is time for those working in the wider civil society to remove some of the benefits, Nice ideas and arguments will not create change, only different practices.

Israel’s Nuclear Hypocrisy

Israel’s posturing and hypocrisy over Iran’s alleged nuclear capacity is mind-boggling. Essentially Israel is saying: “How dare you want what we have, and how dare you flaunt UN requirements like we do.” The subtext is clear: we are the good guys and loyal allies of the USA, and you are part of the evil Empire.

Consider this comment from Ali Kazak, a former Palestinian ambassador:

“All Arab countries actively support the Middle East to be a nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction free zone, and all the Middle Eastern countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) except one, Israel, which headed in the opposite direction secretly developing and producing over 200 nuclear and neutron warheads according to US intelligence agents reported in the Washington Post on December 8, 1980, later confirmed by the Israeli technician working at Dimona nuclear plant, Mordechai Vanunu, in 1985, a figure believed to be doubled by now, and continues its refusal to comply with tens of UN resolutions calling on it to open its nuclear facilities to international inspection.

Israel says that its support for a nuclear-free Middle East is conditional on all countries in the region, including Iran, signing a peace treaty with it. But all Arab and Muslim countries have, in fact, agreed to recognise Israel and sign a peace treaty with Israel, if it recognises the inalienable and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, withdraws from the occupied Arab territories and complies with relevant UN resolutions. Israel refuses to recognise these rights, refuses the Arab peace initiative, refuses to withdraw and builds more Jewish colonies.” (‘A missing peace option,’ Kaleej Times online, 10 February 2012)

Christians find the conversation in this region to be very difficult. This is biblical land, and in amidst modern politics are claims about land and chosen people and the promises of God. Add to this the guilt around the holocaust, the narrow and anti-Palestinian media coverage, and significant racism about people and nations in the Middle East, and Christian responses are often distorted by ignorance and myth.

There is a need for a new Christian narrative for this area: there is no room for nuclear weapons in any parts of the world, and that includes Israel. The requirements of the UN need to be complied with by all countries, and not just those that the US is opposed to – the double standards that exist at present lead to hostility and suspicion and war. Israel does have a right to exist, but so do the Palestinians, and it is time for Israel’s illegal occupation to end.

Selling Child Care centres - A world bound by the bottom line

My local Council - Newcastle City Council - is exploring whether it should sell the Child Care Centres that it ‘owns.’ It seems to me to be another example of the way in which local government, which should be focused on the needs of the community and on the common good, has bought into the narrative of the bottom line, and minimal services.

Of course Councils have to be concerned about their budgets, and they have to work within the constraints imposed by the State Government around rate levels. There is no doubt that Councils are caught between the demands of citizens and stark economic realities, but the issue is the narrative or meaning story that shapes the response.

Take the Child Care Centres. Child Care Centres are one of the ways in which communities seek the care of their children, and the well-being of families. If we agree with that then we can either see this as an issue of the common good that needs to be nurtured by the community as a whole through bodies like local councils. Or we can see it is an issue for individuals, who should simply access child care through private providers, and one in which councils should not be involved.

I belong to a Christian tradition that says that the world is not simply about individual freedom and choices, or a world whose shape is dictated by economic choices in which those with more wealth have a bigger voice. There is a common good, because human beings are essentially social rather than solitary creatures. The well-being of individuals is tied to the well-being of the community. Each person is called to contribute to social conditions that allow all people to be cared for and to reach their full potential as human beings.

I think that Newcastle City Councilors need to re-think their approach to the issue of possible sale of Child Care Centres. The issue is: what can the Council do to contribute to the well-being of the community, and not simply how does it provide space of r individuals to do their thing? The issue may be how this is to be funded, but the starting issue is not about money but services. The budget is built and trimmed around the core services of the Council, many of which are simply not measurable in economic terms, rather than the other way around.

Besides, even at a straight economic level this move is foolish. The Council doesn’t own all the land, mostly the buildings. The Child Care Centres cover their own running costs. There will be little saved in operating costs. There may be a relatively small capital gain from selling the services to others, but this will make no long term difference to the Council budgets. It will simply deplete the Councils role and contribution to the common good of the community.